Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

reply to post by beebs


I think it follows good logic and supports critical thinking, so I disagree with your conclusion. Science is usually inductive, but Physics in particular is deductive in most cases. Neither can we test out the conclusions you deduce from a non-particle view of nature--whatever they may be--, nor can we verify continuity as a valid premise, unless we make up more unverifiable premises to explain it away. Tell me, good sir, how we may know this theory of yours is nothing more than this type of reasoning?

reply to post by Mary Rose
Yes.

Originally posted by beebs
Buddhasystem -

Why are you here?

Someone posted this in another thread and it seemed to fit, and maybe a good laugh is what we need once in a while:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5db6c492921e.jpg[/atsimg]



Could that be the reason? I can't speak for buddhasystem but that at least partly applies to me.

reply to post by Bobathon

Massively false assumption!

I read it. I understood it. And it's bollocks.
Now you read a proper nuclear physics book, understand it, come back and let's talk. Deal?

As I said before, if someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean they don't understand what you're saying. It might mean that you're wrong. (No, really, that can happen.)

No, you didn't. You read an excerpt of the final chapter of the book.

I hope you aren't referring to the nuclear physics that is based upon Rutherford's logic... which was an example of either affirming the consequent or cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Chapter II: The Nucleus

Yeah, and it might mean you are wrong also. I am well aware of the possibility that I am wrong, but it is more logically consistent than any of the alternatives I have come across so far.

reply to post by 547000

I think it follows good logic and supports critical thinking, so I disagree with your conclusion. Science is usually inductive, but Physics in particular is deductive in most cases. Neither can we test out the conclusions you deduce from a non-particle view of nature--whatever they may be--, nor can we verify continuity as a valid premise, unless we make up more unverifiable premises to explain it away. Tell me, good sir, how we may know this theory of yours is nothing more than this type of reasoning?

In regular logic, particles behave like particles. Waves behave like waves. Equations describe behavior of waves, but Copenhagen wants to maintain that they are still particles. Not logical.

ZPE=demonstrated continuity

Fractals=reconciliation of finite and infinite, and self-similarity across scales

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks Arby, yeah a great internet meme.

But it doesn't mean I'm wrong...

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

I hope you aren't referring to the nuclear physics that is based upon Rutherford's logic... which was an example of either affirming the consequent or cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Oh, I see. You think the whole of nuclear physics rests upon the initial speculative assumptions of some guy a hundred years ago, and they never bothered to check them since.

Right. Nobody bothered to check them since. They just took it at face value from Rutherford, and didn't use any logic or any creativity. That's what nuclear physicists are like. They need you, Beebs. Save them.

Good grief.

Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here. But of course you cannot because you accept a premise that you cannot, a premise which cannot be validated. Since your premise is not known to be true your argument is unsound. How is it any "more logical" when you cannot validate the premises? You rely on assumption of things that can't be known nor whose signs can be observed by experiment.

reply to post by Bobathon

Oh, I see. You think the whole of nuclear physics rests upon the initial speculative assumptions of some guy a hundred years ago, and they never bothered to check them since.

Right. Nobody bothered to check them since. They just took it at face value from Rutherford, and didn't use any logic or any creativity. That's what nuclear physicists are like

Of course they checked his experiments and repeated with increased accuracy etc... what they didn't do is consider alternative explanations.

What you fail to realize, is that nuclear physics is a house of theoretical cards presupposing certain beliefs. Read Chapter II, I linked to it above.

And again, this is not a question of capable math, it is a question of physical interpretation of reality.

reply to post by 547000

Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here. But of course you cannot because you accept a premise that you cannot, a premise which cannot be validated. Since your premise is not known to be true your argument is unsound. How is it any "more logical" when you cannot validate the premises? You rely on assumption of things that can't be known nor whose signs can be observed by experiment.

WTF?! quarks

And please be more precise... what premise am I holding that cannot be validated? More importantly, what is the premise that you hold which is apparently valid and not based on assumptions?

BTW, beware of argumentum ad ignorantiam...

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Oh, I see. You think the whole of nuclear physics rests upon the initial speculative assumptions of some guy a hundred years ago, and they never bothered to check them since.

Right. Nobody bothered to check them since. They just took it at face value from Rutherford, and didn't use any logic or any creativity. That's what nuclear physicists are like

Of course they checked his experiments and repeated with increased accuracy etc... what they didn't do is consider alternative explanations.

What you fail to realize, is that nuclear physics is a house of theoretical cards presupposing certain beliefs. Read Chapter II, I linked to it above.

And again, this is not a question of capable math, it is a question of physical interpretation of reality.

edit on 15-4-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)

What do you think about pimesons and muons?

reply to post by beebs


Continuity, dude, implies arbitrary fractions. You say that it's not possible because of cymatics. Continuity is not observed in practice, and so discontinuity is justified inductively.

Originally posted by beebs
WTF?!

quarks

That's deflection, on two levels:

a) a molecule can be considered a "particle" in a range of problems (molecular beams, light scattering etc). You can't have "half a molecule" when you describe how it scatters IR, for example. That doesn't mean that you cannot deconstruct the molecule into atoms etc, but it's still a discrete entity.

Your appeal to quarks have nothing to do with "wave nature" of the proton, for example, and is a cheap attempt at demagoguery.

b) OK, let's look at particle that we simply don't know how to deconstruct at ANY level, such as

uct
dsb
e mu tau (and their neutrinos)

Half a neutrino cannot be absorbed.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
WTF?!

quarks

That's deflection, on two levels:

a) a molecule can be considered a "particle" in a range of problems (molecular beams, light scattering etc). You can't have "half a molecule" when you describe how it scatters IR, for example. That doesn't mean that you cannot deconstruct the molecule into atoms etc, but it's still a discrete entity.

Your appeal to quarks have nothing to do with "wave nature" of the proton, for example, and is a cheap attempt at demagoguery.

b) OK, let's look at particle that we simply don't know how to deconstruct at ANY level, such as

uct
dsb
e mu tau (and their neutrinos)

Half a neutrino cannot be absorbed.

Yep, this is pretty much my problem with it.

reply to post by 547000


I think they can be explained as certain vibratory motions of space, and do not necessarily have to be elementary 'particles'.

reply to post by 547000

Continuity, dude, implies arbitrary fractions. You say that it's not possible because of cymatics. Continuity is not observed in practice, and so discontinuity is justified inductively.

Yeah, like approaching zero? ZPE is the exact phenomenon you are referring to, approaching infinitely less energy density in space, to arbitrarily low levels. I do not say this is not possible because of cymatics, in fact cymatics explains the phenomenon much more readily then particle physics.

Continuity(or rather lack of a vacuum) is observed in demonstrations of ZPE. This doesn't mean that there aren't certain primary 'harmonics' or levels of organizations that appear discrete.

reply to post by buddhasystem


547000 said:

Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here.

To which I responded with quarks... I guess I don't understand the problem at issue here. I thought quarks were 'fractions of a particle' in the most basic sense.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

547000 said:

Still waiting on detecting fractions of a particle here.

To which I responded with quarks... I guess I don't understand the problem at issue here. I thought quarks were 'fractions of a particle' in the most basic sense.

Truly, you do not understand.

You argued for some non-particle nature of everything, only to refer to quarks in the end, which are particles.
When you observe a proton at energy so high you start seeing quarks, you are no longer looking at the proton, but at a different ensemble of particles. You are a person and you can vote, but if someone takes a chainsaw and cuts you in half, there will be two pieces of cadaver but no functional voter. A tourist can't be in Paris and NYC simultaneously.

I gave you my other argument in a separate post, but you obviously didn't get it. Ultimately, when you get to a point-like particle (list given to you in the above post), even the cadaver argument becomes irrelevant because again, get this, you won't detect half a neutrino.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading a biography of Walter Russell by Glenn Clark entitled The Man Who Tapped the Secrets of the Universe, published by The University of Science and Philosophy.

I am struck by this passage quoting Russell speaking to the biographer:

Here's another one:

"Lock yourself up in your room or go out in the woods where you can be alone. When you are alone the universe talks to you in flashes of inspiration. You will find that you will suddenly know things which you never knew before. All knowledge exists in the God-Mind and is extended into this electrical universe of creative expression through desire. Knowledge is yours for the asking. You have but to plug into it. You do not have to learn anything; in fact, all you have to do is recollect it, or recognize it, for you already have it as your inheritance."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

You do not have to learn anything

Yes Mary, I've long since realized that's what you crave the most, to not have to learn.